Adaptations only occur from *sets* of genetic information, not from individual mutes

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Sorry, that still doesn't mean you should be looking for information about mutational processes from podiatrists. (Nor does it explain what this paper has to do with supporting your claim.)

I don't discriminate on my sources. You may ignore any that you choose based on any criteria you choose. You can ignore any data from "men" if you want. I don't mind. I do stay away from "Creation Science" resources when supporting most creationist topics though.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No defense of the claim you made, then.

None visible to you. That's my plan.

(Also, both here and in reading the New Testament, you might want to learn to recognize non-literal language better.)

Figurative language adds dimensions to the literal translation of scripture. But there are scores of people who do each bible translation, and scores of commentary on each sentence in scripture. All I have to to is read the various commentaries and allow God's Spirit to guide me.
(Actually, I only need the last part.)

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Trogool

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2012
2,838
90
✟3,694.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
US-Green
There is something fundamental here, that I am constrained to explain by way of principle and acceptance, as I am not the funded scientist I was never born to be anyway. That's not to say my discoveries won't go down in the history books, I have at least two that I can say with a hundred percent certainty will be remembered or recorded for the rest of time. I don't deem you worthy, to share them with you, at this stage (you could easily discover them yourself if God were willing), but suffice it to say, I do at a minimum have a concept of the integrity needed to be meaningfully sustained by the people - I hope someone can say the same about you.

Ummm, Grandiose delusions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ?
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,675
7,744
64
Massachusetts
✟339,441.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I believe I did read each one. Though on occasion, I feel an abstract alone covers the topic well enough.
Then start explaining why you think these papers support your claim.

Also, I'd still like to know where you got the citations, and now I'd like to know how you got access to the podiatry paper.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,675
7,744
64
Massachusetts
✟339,441.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I don't discriminate on my sources.
You should, if you want reliable information.

You may ignore any that you choose based on any criteria you choose.
Who said anything about ignoring your sources? I noted parenthetically that this was unlikely to be a useful paper, but my main point was to ask you why this paper supported your claim. You haven't responded to that request yet.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,675
7,744
64
Massachusetts
✟339,441.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
None visible to you. That's my plan.
Ah, you're supporting your claim with invisible evidence. Now I begin to understand your posts better. Are you sure you've got a firm grasp on this whole logic thing?

Look, you made a claim about mutations. To support that claim you've offered multiple references that don't, in fact, support it. You've offered no argument in favor of it -- just vague comments that don't engage with the relevant issues, plus cryptic one-liners like the above that intimate you know what you're talking about, but that don't commit you to a concrete statement about anything. Do you have a point to any of this?
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Look, you made a claim about mutations. To support that claim you've offered multiple references that don't, in fact, support it.

You are entitled to your conclusions. My viewpoint is built over years of reading and debate. And my conclusions are not summed up in 15 minutes of research for your pleasure. If you choose to spend a lot of time supporting one view for one person, I have no objection. Happy Thanksgiving! :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,675
7,744
64
Massachusetts
✟339,441.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You are entitled to your conclusions. My viewpoint is built over years of reading and debate.
And yet the only reading you've offered to support your claims doesn't, and you're completely unwilling to engage in any debate. I'm sorry, but no one is entitled to conclusions about facts; correct conclusions have to be based on evidence and valid logic. My conclusions are based on years of dealing with genetics professionally. So what? They can still be wrong. If I make a scientific statement, I'm willing to defend it, and to retract it if necessary.

And my conclusions are not summed up in 15 minutes of research for your pleasure. If you choose to spend a lot of time supporting one view for one person, I have no objection.
This would be a more persuasive disclaimer (though still very weak) if you hadn't already tried to support your claim and failed. You have time to provide fallacious reasons for your claim, but not valid ones?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Upvote 0